After due hearing, in the course of which testimonial and documentary evidence were introduced, the parties filed their respective memoranda. Said petition was opposed by the Republic of the Philippines, the City of Manila, Ricardo Rosal and a number of other entities and individuals. After due hearing, this motion was granted on November 10, 1964.Ībout two (2) weeks before, or on October 22, 1964, the MERALCO had, moreover, filed another petition 2 seeking approval of a revised (increased) rate schedule, and of the "Terms and Conditions of Service" and the "Standard Rules and Regulations" appended to the application, for the purpose of providing a fair return on the present value of its property now devoted to public service and of attracting foreign capital with which to expand its facilities in order to meet the requirements of its present and future customers. Earlier, or on October 15, 1964, the MERALCO had, however, moved to withdraw its aforementioned petitions for revision of rates.
Soon later, or on October 8, 1964, the PSC caused the three (3) cases to be set for hearing on November 16, 1964. On appeal taken by the MERALCO, said decision of the PSC was, on June 30, 1964, set aside by the Supreme Court 1 and the cases remanded to the lower court, for further proceedings and rendition of the corresponding judgment. Industrial customers, including non-associated electric utilities On December 27, 1957, the PSC rendered a decision directing the MERALCO to reduce its rates as follows:Ĭommercial customers, including government agencies and street lighting (except the street lights for the City of Manila, the rates for which are fixed by contract) Gil and upon another letter-report of the GAO to the PSC, dated November 21, 1955. Similarly, the Solicitor General submitted the cases upon the aforementioned GAO report and said letter of Dr. On July 31, 1956, the MERALCO objected to said report. Gil submitted the cases, relying upon the GAO report and his letter to the PSC, dated June 7, 1956, suggesting an 8% return on the invested capital. On the date last mentioned the parties appeared before an officer of the PSC and an "informal hearing," for the alleged purpose of defining the issues, was held. The GAO having submitted its report late in May, 1956, the three (3) cases were set for hearing on June 22 of the same year.
Pedro Gil had applied for the examination of the books of account of the MERALCO, which was eventually undertaken by the General Auditing Office - hereinafter referred to as the GAO - early in May, 1956.
The last application was provisionally approved on August 31, 1955, whereas the first two (2) were granted on September 24, 1955. On August 24, 1955, the MERALCO filed a third application, this time for the reduction of general power rates (PSC Case No. 85889), and another for the reduction of rates for residential customers (PSC Case No. On March 10, 1955, it filed with the Public Service Commission - hereinafter referred to as the PSC - two (2) applications, namely, one for the reduction of rates for non-residential customers and commercial customers (PSC Case No. The Manila Electric Company - hereinafter referred to as the MERALCO - is a domestic corporation, operating electric light, heat and power systems in the City of Manila, and several cities and municipalities in the Island of Luzon. These are four (4) different appeals from a decision and an order of the Public Service Commission, dated March 15, and July 16, 1965, respectively. Francisco, Ross, Selph, and Del Rosario, J. Office of the Solicitor General for petitioner Republic. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, respondents. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, respondents and appellees. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner and appellant,
0 kommentar(er)
